Central serous chorioretinopathy, a sporadic disease of unknown cause affects the eyes of otherwise healthy young adults and is characterized by impairment of central visual acuity as a consequence of accumulation of fluid under the sensory retina in the region of the macula. In selected patients, laser photocoagulation to the site of fluorescein dye leakage has been effective in promoting early resolution of the disease. In patients in whom the point of fluorescein dye leakage is close to the fovea, laser photocoagulation directed to an area under the serous detachment remote from the point of fluorescein dye leakage has been suggested. A prospective, randomized study is presently ongoing at the Mayo Clinic to determine the validity of such laser photocoagulation. Patients in whom the diagnosis of central serous chorioretinopathy is made are divided into two categories depending on the location of fluorescein dye leakage determined by angiography. The retina within the papillomacular bundle and up to 500 microns from the capillary free zone of the macula comprises a critical area which determines the radomization of treatment assignment. Patients having a leakage site within the critical area (Group A) are randomly assigned a sham laser treatment or a real laser treatment to an area under the serous detachment peripheral to the critical area (indirect photocoagulation). Patients with a leakage site outside the critical area (Group B) are randomly assigned real laser treatments to the site of dye leakage (direct photocoagulation) or alternately to an area under the serous detachment, peripheral to the critical area (indirect photocoagulation). The clinical study hopes to provide answers to two key questions: 1) Does direct argon laser photocoagulation significantly shorten the natural course of the disease, central serous chorioretinopathy? 2) Does the safer technique of indirect argon laser photocoagulation shorten the natural course of central serous chorioretinopathy; if so, is it as effective, more effective, or less effective than direct laser photocoagulation?